Seek and you may (not) find: A multi-institutional analysis of where research data are shared

被引:1
|
作者
Johnston, Lisa R. [1 ]
Mohr, Alicia Hofelich [2 ]
Herndon, Joel [3 ]
Taylor, Shawna [4 ]
Carlson, Jake R. [5 ]
Ge, Lizhao [6 ]
Moore, Jennifer [7 ]
Petters, Jonathan [8 ]
Kozlowski, Wendy [9 ]
Vitale, Cynthia Hudson [10 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Data Acad Planning & Inst Res, Madison, WI USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Liberal Arts Technol & Innovat Serv, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Duke Univ, Duke Univ Lib, Ctr Data & Visualizat Sci, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[4] Assoc Res Lib, Washington, DC USA
[5] SUNNY Buffalo, Univ Buffalo, Buffalo, NY USA
[6] George Washington Univ, Milken Inst, Sch Publ Hlth, Washington, DC USA
[7] Washington Univ, Washington Univ St Louis, St Louis, MO USA
[8] Univ Lib, Data Serv, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA
[9] Cornell Univ Lib, Cornell Univ, Res Data & Open Scholarship, Ithaca, NY USA
[10] Assoc Res Lib, Washington, DC USA
来源
PLOS ONE | 2024年 / 19卷 / 04期
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0302426
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Research data sharing has become an expected component of scientific research and scholarly publishing practice over the last few decades, due in part to requirements for federally funded research. As part of a larger effort to better understand the workflows and costs of public access to research data, this project conducted a high-level analysis of where academic research data is most frequently shared. To do this, we leveraged the DataCite and Crossref application programming interfaces (APIs) in search of Publisher field elements demonstrating which data repositories were utilized by researchers from six academic research institutions between 2012-2022. In addition, we also ran a preliminary analysis of the quality of the metadata associated with these published datasets, comparing the extent to which information was missing from metadata fields deemed important for public access to research data. Results show that the top 10 publishers accounted for 89.0% to 99.8% of the datasets connected with the institutions in our study. Known data repositories, including institutional data repositories hosted by those institutions, were initially lacking from our sample due to varying metadata standards and practices. We conclude that the metadata quality landscape for published research datasets is uneven; key information, such as author affiliation, is often incomplete or missing from source data repositories and aggregators. To enhance the findability, interoperability, accessibility, and reusability (FAIRness) of research data, we provide a set of concrete recommendations that repositories and data authors can take to improve scholarly metadata associated with shared datasets.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] TRANSLATOR Database-A Vision for a Multi-Institutional Research Network
    Kwong, Manlik
    Gardner, Heather L.
    Dieterle, Neil
    Rentko, Virginia
    [J]. TOPICS IN COMPANION ANIMAL MEDICINE, 2019, 37
  • [42] SMERT: Fostering multi-institutional collaboration in medical education research
    Schneid, Stephen D.
    Simanton, Edward
    Szarek, John L.
    [J]. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2024, 58 (05) : 635 - 636
  • [43] Multi-institutional Collaboration to Promote Undergraduate Clinical Research Nursing
    Garner, Shelby L.
    Spencer, Becky
    Beal, Claudia C.
    [J]. NURSE EDUCATOR, 2016, 41 (01) : 49 - 51
  • [44] THE IMPACT OF DRGS ON CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS - A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY
    LANGLANDORBAN, B
    CUDDEBACK, JK
    IVES, JE
    BARTON, MJ
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 1988, 26 (05) : 510 - 514
  • [45] Microwave ablation for hepatic malignancies: A multi-institutional analysis
    Groeschl, Ryan Thomas
    Pilgrim, Charles Henry Caldow
    Hanna, Erin Marie
    Simo, Kerri A.
    Swan, Ryan Z.
    Sindram, David
    Martinie, John B.
    Iannitti, David A.
    Bloomston, Mark
    Schmidt, Carl Richard
    Khabiri, Homan
    Shirley, Lawrence Andrew
    Martin, Robert C. G.
    Christians, Kathleen K.
    Rilling, William S.
    Gamblin, T. Clark
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 31 (04)
  • [46] Are Esophagectomy Board Requirements Achievable? A Multi-Institutional Analysis
    Luc, Jessica G. Y.
    Reddy, Rishindra M.
    Corsini, Erin M.
    Carrott, Philip W.
    David, Elizabeth A.
    Shemanski, Kimberly
    Fabian, Thomas
    McCarthy, Daniel P.
    Okereke, Ikenna
    Oliver, Aundrea L.
    Turner, Simon R.
    Vaporciyan, Ara A.
    Antonoff, Mara B.
    [J]. SEMINARS IN THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2021, 33 (04) : 1158 - 1166
  • [47] Pediatric Patients Hospitalized with Myocarditis: A Multi-Institutional Analysis
    Darren Klugman
    John T. Berger
    Craig A. Sable
    Jianping He
    Sachin G. Khandelwal
    Anthony D. Slonim
    [J]. Pediatric Cardiology, 2010, 31 : 222 - 228
  • [48] Parathyroidectomy for Tertiary Hyperparathyroidism: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Outcomes
    Patel, Aum
    Lee, Cortney Y.
    Sloan, David A.
    Randle, Reese W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 258 : 430 - 434
  • [49] In-transit Melanoma: A Multi-institutional Analysis of Outcomes
    Bello, Danielle
    Rhodin, Kristen E.
    Brady, Mary S.
    Bartlett, Edmund
    Mosca, Paul
    Salama, April K.
    Tyler, Douglas
    Ariyan, Charlotte
    Beasley, Georgia
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 29 (SUPPL 2) : 511 - 511
  • [50] Digital data integrity QA for multi-institutional clinical trials
    Straube, W.
    Bosch, W.
    Matthews, J.
    Haynes, R.
    Purdy, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2087 - 2087